Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 1

Untitled
Did Briginski refer to people killed by Stalin during WWI or in total (including the purges and famines)? If so, the statement should be moved to the correct paragraph. (Perhaps nitpicking, but there should be some words on the uncertaincy of the numbers. I've heard 10 million Russians in total during WWII, including those killed by the Germans. In a speach in the 80s, Gorbachev only admitted that Stalin killed "thousands".) -Guppie


 * After [Vladimir Lenin]?'s death in 1924?, a triumverate of Stalin, Kamenev?, and Zinoviev? governed against Trotsky? (on the left wing of the party) and Bukharin? (on the right wing of the party).

We shouldn't wikify just the last names here. I would simply remove the double brackets, but we will want to link to articles about these people; besides, we need the full names of these people. --LMS

Done!

Several times, Russian people have told me (with various level of bitterness and anger) of what Stalin did to the Ukraine. They blame him for killing millions of people -- civilial, non-wartime deaths -- by systematic, deliberate starvation. Okay, I'm getting emotional here (in /Talk), but is there a way to mention Ukraine and genocide in the Stalin article.
 * Stalin is often credited with successfully industrializing the Soviet Union. What can be said without controversy is that by the time of World War II, the Soviet economy had been industrialized to the point that the Soviets could resist the German invasion. That Stalin or his policies are to be credited for this is contended.


 * Much of this industrial achievement resulted from foreign firms being brought in to develop Soviet industry. This was simply a continuation of the industrialization process that began under the czars, and is ultimately a continuation of the policy of modernization begun by [Peter the Great]? in the 17th century, which also relied on the importation of human capital. That this policy continued to create beneficial results under Stalin, as it had under the czars, does not speak to Stalin's effectiveness as a leader or to the practicality of a socialist economy.

I think this last paragraph goes too far. The first establishes that there is disagreement, the second more or less instructs the reader which opinion is best. If nobody objects, I'd like to alter it slightly. -- Zork

The measures taken by Stalin to discipline those who opposed his will involved the death by execution or famine of at least 10 million peasants (1932-33). 

From article:
 * (Recently, claims have been made that the USSR was in fact preparing to attack Germany as part of a small scale invasion of Europe, and that this contributed to the Red Army's state of upreparedness.)

Please provide a source for these claims -- better yet, a summary of them, too! -- and then put this paragraph back in. This is very interesting. --Ed Poor


 * I've seen these claims before, and usually the sources are rather dubious.

From what i read Tsarist Russia was starting to industrialise and was growing economically at a faster rate than the Soviets ever achieved and that that was one of the reasons the Germans went to war in 1914 - they feared that if they waited much longer Russia would be too strong. -- Paul Melville Austin

Russia started the war, not germany. They were hoping to break through into southeastern Europe. Vera Cruz


 * The Russians started the first offensive on the eastern front when they invaded East Prussia on August 17, 1914, but the Germans started their western offensive on August 4, 1914, when they invaded Luxembourg and Belgium. Mintguy


 * Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. -- Zoe

Read much zoe? Vera Cruz

---

Vera Cruz is right, Zoe.

172

Does anybody know how to spell his original name in the Georgian alphabet? Looking at, this would be cool for wikipedia... --217.215.99.203

Question: Who argues that the Stalinist famines are a hoax, and how wipespread is this belief among historians?

This paragraph makes no sense.....


 * These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual amount of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes. The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation

It's not clear whether it has been argued that the death toll wasn't as great, or that there were famines but that Stalin wasn't responsible for them. -

Moved here until someone can rewrite


 * Some argue that collectivization even produced major "man-made famines" in 1932-33, particularly in Ukraine responsible for up to 5 million deaths. Collectivization led to a drop in the already low productivity of Russian farming, which did not regain the NEP level until 1940, or allowing for the further disasters of World War II, 1950. These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is  debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That  collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual amount of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes. The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation.

Regarding that change--A lot of references to the murders and other atrocities of Stalin in this and other articles were removed and replaced with a more sympathetic portrayal in recent days, not only of Stalin. I think we need to look at the POV issues associated with these recent changes (also take a look at how Deng has been given a much more sympathetic portrayal in some recent article changes with respect to China, with the Tianamen massacre apparently being justified; I forget which article I saw those changes being made in, but I am concerned about the direction that some of those changes have been going in). soulpatch


 * Part of the problem is that the two people who have been

working on the Deng Xiaoping article (myself and 172) are generally sympathetic to him. What the article really needs is a going through by someone who doesn't like Deng at all. (Hint: Deng's actions during the Anti-rightist movement don't look good, and one can really write a lot more about his actions during TAM which also don't look good).


 * There is a deeper issue here. My own point of view is that the article about Mao is far too sympathetic.  The trouble is that my edits have been systematically reverted.  At some point one has to ask whether decision making by exhaustion is the best way to resolve conflicting edits.

--User:Roadrunner

-- soulpatch, let the history speak for itself. Those articles read like Britannica, which does not cite Robert Conquest either.


 * History never speaks for itself. It requires people to speak for it and we are going to insert our own biases into it.  As far as Britannica, one thing that I do not like about Britannica and most encyclopedias is that they do not cite the sources of their views, which makes it difficult or impossible for an interested party to do further research to make up their own mind.

-- User:Roadrunner

Wikipedia is not here to condemn Deng or exonerate him. That article indicates that living standards improved during his era, which is indisputable. If someone could get a favorable impression of Deng from reading the article, so what? I'm sure one would get a unfavorable impression of Pol Pot from the article about him.


 * The problem comes in when edits that aren't favorable to Deng get removed by one person who has more energy than the person who put in the unfavorable edits. The article then becomes the view of one person rather than a community effort.

-- User:Roadrunner

- 172, can we please stay on topic and only write about the subject of this article (sic Joseph Stalin)? There is no reason why this article should be yet another place to restate general Soviet Union history. Much of the text I removed is word for word the same as the text already in Soviet Union or History of the Soviet Union. Most notable is that the text doesn't even mention Stalin. --mav

Some of the things written here aren't even remotely NPOV. Example: "In spite of early breakdowns and failures, the first Five-Year Plan achieved amazing results, mainly because of the heroic sacrifices of the common people." Puh-leeze. Or, "During this period, kulak sabotage aggravated a massive famine in the Ukraine." A lot of this article is nothing short of pro-Stalin propaganda, singing his praises and minimizing the massive human rights violations that he commited. soulpatch

- soulpatch:

Read a fucking history book. You’ll find the same sentences in any survey history textbook. The article's not a commentary on human rights. That's for the readers to decide. I feel that they are intelligent enough to realize that he was a paranoid murderer without having the article say so.

172


 * Please spare us sentences like "read a fucking history book". That shows a disinterest in discussing this issue seriously.  Phrases like "heroic sacrifices of the common people" just don't cut it, in my opinion--it is all about singing praises and glory and really isn't an NPOV phrasing.  And now you are saying that articles should leave pertinent information out of the subject matter because people should know that stuff anyway?  Wow.  Interesting idea of what should go into an encyclopedia article, I must say.  soulpatch


 * If this isn't supposed to be a commentary on human rights then why is this article a commentary on all the warm and fuzzy things that he did? --mav

It’s not at all. If diseases were eradicated, then diseases were eradicated. No evaluations needed.

172

--- Word heroic is gone.

172

---

I called Stalin a paranoid murderer in the talk section, so don't call me a Stalinist. But this article doesn't need to read like Conquest or the Black Book. It's NPOV as it is.


 * I don't think you are a "Stalinist". I do think that you are something of an apologist for Stalin, but that doesn't make you a Stalinist.  That is neither here nor there.  The article should not call him a "paranoid murderer" either, for that matter.  But the article should also not ignore the reign of terror that he unleashed while at the same time singing his praises for all the wonderful things he is supposed to have done.  The article is presently just too biased towards his glorious accomplishments in contrast to the horrors that he unleashed, in my view.  soulpatch

"reign of terror" is a loaded phrase. besides, details on the purges are covered. it does not sing his praises either. For instance, if diseases were eradicated, then they were eradicated. Let’s paint the big picture and let readers draw their own conclusions.


 * Of course it is a loaded phrase, and I am not suggesting that it should be used in the article--I would strongly oppose the use of such language. soulpatch

---

Details on the purges are covered as well. It's already NPOV.

--

Let's work on new content, not commentarty. 172

--

I think the estimates of how many died at the hands of Stalin should be included in the article, but as I'm not in the mood for an edit war with 172, I'll put the paragraph here for your discussion:

It is believed by some that with the purges, famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millons that died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Western historians such as Robert Conquest have estimated it to 10, 20 or 40 millions. Former National Security Advisor to US President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, suggested 20 millions. No official figure have been released by the Soviet or Russian government.

I'd call this content, not commentary. --Guppie

Cite a source like Britannica. Go look up their Stalin article. Brzezinski and Conquest are not to be cited as fact in an encyclopedia. User:172

Britannica: In 1928 he inaugurated the Five-Year Plans that radically altered Soviet economic and social structures and resulted in the deaths of many millions.

Not very informative, but we can cite it. --Guppie -- Yes, the article needs stats. I'm suggesting Britannica. Citing Conquest does not really have its place unless countered.


 * I will admit that Brzezinski is one of my least favorite people in the world, but I can see no reason why he can't be used as one source among many in an article that presents various points of view concerning historical events. On the other hand, citing Britannica as a source seems a little bizarre.  Encyclopedias should not be citing other encyclopedias as sources.  An encyclopedia is a derivative source, and we should be using the sources that other Encyclopedias use, or better or competing ones if we can find them, but definitely not other encyclopedias.  If people want to use other encyclopedias for a source, they should be reading that encylopedia, not ours.  soulpatch

--

This is Wikipedia, not Britannica. Citing conquest is like citing Zyuganov, the head of the Russian Communist Party. Agendas! User:172

Yes, we can cite Zyuganov also, as long as we don't present it as the absolute truth. --Guppie

Actually, I'd really be interested in what Zyuganov and Russian Communists have to say about this. One more thing, just because someone has an agenda, doesn't mean that they are wrong. *Everyone* has an agenda.

--Roadrunner

- Of course, Roadrunner. The problem was that both extremes were not represented, only Conquest's.


 * The problem is that it's not clear that there are extremes here. For example, the Chinese Communist Party doesn't contest Western death figures for the GLF or the CR.  It's quite possible that the Russian Communist Party doesn't contest Conguest's numbers.  The RCP might even strongly dislike Stalin.  Do you know what the attitude of the RCP is, and if *anyone* contests Conquest's numbers?

---Roadrunner

Need attributions here.

I've never read anyone (even pro-Stalinist literature) argue this, and would be greatly appreciative if someone attributed these views to someone other than (some).


 * These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That  collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual amount of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes. The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation.


 * It is believed by some that with the purges, famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millons that died under Stalin is greatly disputed. No fficial figure have been released by the Soviet or Russian government.

It is believed by some implies it is not believed by others. Who?

It's not clear who espouses these views. Most of the pro-Stalinist literature that I've read does not deny the existence of harsh measures or the large numbers of deaths but rather attempts to justify them. Most of the pro-Marxist literature I've read tends to be anti-Stalinist. User:Roadrunner

These views are held by historical revisionists like "The Red Comrades Documentation Project" (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/) and Eco. Eco originally wrote the sentence about the dust bowl, which I strongly doubt, but I haven't had the time to research it properly. --Guppie

- the question is to what extent was the famine man-made.

-

I'll give Zoe time to respond before I restore Paektu's caption.

The photo is a photo of Stalin. It doesn't need a caption, since it's being used with an article about him. And the caption used was not NPOV. -- Zoe

-

Zoe:

This explanation was unacceptable: “And the caption used was not NPOV.”. The question is why. I’ll give you one more chance to respond intelligently before I revert Paektu’s caption.

172

What part of NPOV do you not understad? Oh, that's right, you write only POV. -- Zoe

Zoe:

Once again with the personal attacks. Read my question once again:

Zoe:

I don’t understand your latest change.

The Communist Party in Russia has the largest membership base in Russia, the largest single voting bloc in parliament, and a majority of the country’s regional governorships.

Read this article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/31/164950.shtml

It’s absolutely indisputable that many elderly voters are nolstalgic for the days of Communism. What else would explain the party’s strength?

Besides, the photo makes little sense without Paektu’s caption.

172

--

Notice the word “many” in the sentence as well.


 * I disagree with Zoe here -- the photograph is not a photo of Stalin, it is a photo of a group of people, one of whom is holding a photo of Stalin. A caption that provides some context is reasonable.  Also, the deleted caption seemed to be NPOV to me because it asserted an empirically verifiable fact, and not an opinion.  To claim that Stalin was good or bad is POV.  To claim that some people remember him nostalgicly is an assertion of fact.  true, this assertion may be wrong.  My own reading of Time Magazine articles suggests that this claim, however, is accurate.  Would Zoe feel better with an attribution (i.e., "According to...)?  That may be a good idea -- certainly better than deleting information that provides context for the photo as well as provides some information about Stalin's continuing important -- at least, to some -- in Russia today. Slrubenstein


 * This approach works for me. -- Zoe

--

I expect an apology from Zoe now.

172


 * LOL! -- Zoe

---

That wasn't an apology!

172

Your reversion didn't comply with what we had agreed to here. -- Zoe

Former President Nixon, in his book, "1999: Victory Without War", called Stalin:
 * "...a man who killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens."

--- Hm. Replacing one POV with the opposite POV does not improve the article. For example, this article used to mention the dust bowl as one possible contributing factor to the deaths in the Soviet Union during the 30s. It would be dishonest to leave out this bit of info - it objectively stated what some people consider to be a cause. --mav 23:57 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Who exactly claims that the famines were the result of a "Dust bowl" certainly not the vast majority of respected historians. we shouldent give any credence to people who make excuses for Stalin's actions which were undoubtedly the major cause of the famines and have been widely accepted as so. There seems to be a sort of "Hollocaust denial" type of tendency towards the actions of Stalin's regime which people would find unnaceptable about the Nazis, but seem to tollerate with Stalin.User:G-Man

Its that whole "dont speak ill of the dead" thing. - &#35918&#30505

More on Stalin, the Soviet Union and mass murder:


 * In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 30.7 million. (source:, but should be easy to double-check the AS book) --Uncle Ed

Yeah well those historians got millions up their asses and shit in their mouths. 66.7 million? Fucking hilarious

During the time when Stalin was around 3 million died. Stalin only excuted 1 million. 7 million were arrested- but they did not die. 8 million were put into camps- but did not die. only 3 million died in camps. therfor i say those historians can shove their history books up their asses. Heres proof. http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html.

Archives, POV's and Edits
Some of the edits made today (Dec. 7) were fantastic strides toward a NPOV. Valeofruin (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrght I buckled down and redid the intro at least. It will of course be edited over time and I'm sure all views will be expressed sooner rather then later.

I also noted some people claiming that the Soviet Archives 'Prove' several 'Million' died in Gulag. I would like to point out that similar reports exist supporting the pro Stain side of the story as well

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28616

The reality is according to that article, that there exists a report in excess of 9000 pages, available in Russian text only supporting the Thesis that only 425,000 died in the Soviet Gulags, that bases 100% of it's conclusions on Soviet Archives.

Therefore the question of the Soviet Penal system, like that of the famines, and the Purges, STILL lies in dispute, and you can't exactly continue to present 1 side without doing some 'Writing as the enemy' and lending a shred of credibility to the other on the basis that "i am a scared man with no one that likes me"

In addition I would like to address the other claim on the talk page that seems to go something like, "People don't do this for Lenin, why should Stalin be any different?"

I would like to clarify that if I had in fact read 'The Holocaust Lie' or some such book, and if i felt i had a firm enough grasp on Holocaust denial to make a claim against the Hitler article, there would undoubtably be a dispute tag there as well.

P.S. List or not Webbed toes is off topic, and perhaps coincides with the neutrality dispute. It's a random fact, much like TRIVIA, that seems to imply that Stalin is in fact a sea creature as opposed to a perfectly normal human being of biographical and historical significance. It doesnt NEED to be there, it doesn't contribute anything to the broader scheme of the article, it's just a 'fun fact', therefore I don't feel its deletion is Vandalism.

Valeofruin (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalin;s poem
He was walking through streets and markets Knocking doors of me and you. He was playing his old panduri And singing his song. He knew, That song of him - it was magic And as pure, as shining ray. It had a truth and wisdom And dream he could not astray. Hearts of stone got softer When listening stranger's song. Spiritual flame was stonger And shining wide and long. But they, who's souls were in darknness Who forgot their duty and faith Gave him a cup of poison Mixing the wine with death. "Drink it" - they said - "God damn you! This was the way you choose... Your song for us is just nonsence And we don't need your truth!"

translated from russian by Mikhail D.Kuznetsov 77.45.240.248 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Bullock
Does anyone have this book used for a quote about Stalin's suspicions about Soviet POWs? The entire quote and more is based on one note in the book, but I don't know where Bullock got the information from, and would like to.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MRP in the lead
Well, first I think it's obviously significant enough - being pretty much the most important diplomatic agreement concluded under Stalin, possibly aside from Keitel's capitulation - to be in the lead. Second, Paul, previously you stated you were ok with the version I proposed, as long as it was without the "carving up" part. The thing about compromises in a repeated interaction with another person is that they have to be observed or the cooperation breaks down. Of course, being compromises, neither side is going to be perfectly happy. Then, you state above that somehow mentioning the secret protocol is "Polonocentric". Actually, you're the one being "Poloncentric" here, since you're, once again, forgetting about the Baltics, Finland and Romania. In fact the secret protocol concerned; Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Romania. So mentioning it is in fact representing a Germano-Soviet-Polano-Lithuaniano-Latviano-Estoniano-Finno-Romanocentric. In other words it involves all the parties concerned. I guess it doesn't quite give the Fijian POV but, hey, undue weight and all that. Finally in reference to the Roberts article you give above; as the author himself admits, his thesis is "contrary to historic orthodoxy", hence not representative of historical consensus (besides the fact that he doesn't even have circumstantial evidence. It's all pure conjecture. This kind of stuff one can get away with in ____-studies departments, as here, but not in serious history departments). If a historical consensus that the part of the protocol concerning Poland didn't exist, emerge at some point in the future... well, so what? The Baltic, Finns and Romanian parts are enough to support inclusion of the contentious phrase. Sorry, I already compromised on this so I'm not giving in any extra feet, after the inches.radek (talk)

As regards to your arguments on "Polonocentrism", "_____-studies department" etc. I think, your have to agree that they are a kind of straw man style to conduct a discussion. I hope you are educated enough to realise a fallaciousness of them. By the way, the style you conduct a discussion suggests you take it too personally, therefore, it is difficult for you to be neutral. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't argue about first. MRP triggered the war and pre-determined all other foreign steps of the USSR during 1939-40, therefore it deserves mentioning as soon as we mention other Stalin's questionable steps. Second, I didn't modify your edit. I changed the Seektrue's edit that removed MRP at all, re-introducing MRP back (hoping that it would be a reasonable compromise between you and Seektrue). In actuality, I wasn't fully satisfied with your wording, however, I wouldn't say full omission of MRP (proposed by Seektrue) to be correct either. I also don't think the difference between revision 244420762 and the present version is a serious reason to start an edit war, but if you inclined to do so, feel free to go on. For me, both these versions are satisfactory.

Fellas,

I keep saying that MRP shouldn't be in the lead 'cause it's not the right place for it. This article is about Stalin and not WWII. It's kind of odd placing something as MRP in a summarized part of Stalin's article.

And who says that MRP allowed Hitler to invade Poland? How easy is it to say that Hitler would have invaded anyway regardless of the pact? Not that I support this claim, but this is a historical argument clearly worth debating. That's another reason why it shouldn't be in the intro. That the Soviet Union under Stalin played a decisive part in defeating Hitler is a given fact hard to refute, and clearly shows the significance of Stalin. That's why it's important to place that in the lead.

But that Stalin, through the MRP, helped trigger the war is not, you'd need an essay to prove that.

This is getting too detailed to place in the intro, personally I'd rather put something there about the XIX party congress where Stalin tries to finish off his likely successors. Isn't that significant? Yes it is, but too detailed.

Let me know your thoughts on this

Seektrue (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * MRP carved up large areas in Eastern-Europe (5 contries completely + part of Romania). Already that fact alone is pretty damn notable. Dividing Poland started war. I would say that Stalin's cooperation with Hitler is definitely notable enough to be mentioned.--Staberinde (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Should this be noted?
Maybe we should mention here that the use of torture by the NKVD was authorized by Central Committee of the Communist Party and ordered personally by Joseph Stalin. For example, during "Doctor's Plot" Stalin requested to torture falsely accused physicians "to death" (see this article: Stalin's torture: "Beat them to death" (Russian) by Novaya Gazeta).Biophys (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, he requested to execute them (hang them up) publicly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is true.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing
''His son finally shot himself because of Stalin's harshness toward him, but survived. After this, Stalin said "He can't even shoot straight".'' This phrase reads like a part of a novel or a movie script. Is there a source for this? -- TEO 64 X  14:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the article, stalins father wasn't ossetian, yes some scientists think that surname jughashvili may have ossetian roots ,but stalins father was cultural Georgian. In Georgian Stalins surname sounds like Jughashvili and not Dhzugashvili and at the end "shvili" is the ending of Georgian surnames.

Stalin's surname
There is a mistake in the article, stalins father wasn't ossetian, yes some scientists think that surname jughashvili may have ossetian roots ,but stalins father was cultural Georgian. In Georgian Stalins surname sounds like Jughashvili and not Dhzugashvili and at the end "shvili" is the ending of Georgian surnames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.pukha (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently there is actual evidence that Stalin's father was Ossetian. From Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Young Stalin": "When Stalin's dying father was admitted to hospital, significantly he was still registered as Ossetian."165.123.123.205 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong dates on photographs
I noticed that some dates concerning the pictures appear to be incorrect. According to Simon Sebag Montefiore's Young Stalin, mentioned under Further Reading, the picture of Stalin wearing a scarf (currently dated 1902) was taken after Stalin was arrested when attending a party conference in March 1906 (p.180). Further, Montefiore claims that the information card from the secret police actually depicts Stalin in 1911, not 1912. --Heburnslikethesun (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the information card date (as there was no visible source for the current date of 1912). I've left the other one for now - the original image source of the picture of him in a scarf seems to assert that its source, the book "Josef Wissarionowitsch Stalin - Kurze Lebensbeschreibung", claims it as 1902. I'm not familiar with either of these books personally, so I'll leave it to someone more familiar with the subject matter. ~  mazca  t 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The date of Stalin's birth in the article is incorrect. Stalin was born on December 21, 1879. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherohlyn (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(Speaking on photographs) Some of these pictures, particularly ones with Lenin may have been forged. Is this this taken into account in the article or in the captions? Protectthehuman (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Burial misconceptions
Can somebody add why people thought he was cremated? Buried without fanfare must be added! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayazidd (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

third most popular russian in history
A russian television station is holding a poll in which stalin is until now the third most popular russian in history. Final results will be released on dec 29. Is this interesting. And where could this be inclueded in the articel. Here are some links: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=DG9rbkSNYAQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbryan (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth in this article is incorrect
Stalin was born on December 21, 1879, not on the 18th of that month and that year, as the article indicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherohlyn (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It also contradicts other wikipedia articles - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dec_21#Births —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.99.141 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Stalin
The sentence "Pro-Stalinist historians such as Ludo Martens and Stefan Merl, estimating meager 300,000 casualties" seems like pure POV to me, in regard to Merl. Martens' communism and sympathy for Stalin is obvious but I've seen no indication the Stefan Merl, a German professor, is sympathetic to Stalin or even a communist. The word "meager" seems inappropriate to me, designed to provoke outrage over Merl's alleged apologia. -Matt

This is just another example of something that does not belong in the intro. what's been left to the content of the article if Ludo Martens and Stefan Merl are mentioned at the beginning. 82.194.62.220 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt belong in the intro, this is true, but unfortunately you have to 'Write as the enemy' on every given point in this article.

There are 2 completely different sides to this story. You have to include both of them, or find a way to write a neutral article that mentions something aside from all the 'horrors' of Stalin, or any progress you want to make on this article will reach a stand still as 'undo' buttons will be furiously pressed. Valeofruin (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin and the Spanish Civil War
There should be a section on Russian action in the Spanish Civil War. I know it opens a whole new area of controversy, especially when considering the supression of POUM, but somebody should give it a try.Locospotter (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

scrolling boxes
I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Stalin's. JW (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As at the Adolf Hitler page, I will say that I don't like any internal scrolling feature. I prefer to continue scrolling from the outside of the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not! Scrollboxes are never to be used in an article because of major accessibility issues.  I am a little bit surprised that there isn't something in the WP:MOS about this (at least, nothing that I could readily find).  See the template documentation at Template:Scroll box for more details; this template is coded to be disabled in the main article namespace.  The html workaround is, obviously, also not allowed for the same reasons.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad English
This from the intro is bad English: "Critics argue his rule was typical of a dictator, and refer to his style of leadership as Stalinism[5], whereas others refute these accusations as falsifications or exaggeration.[6] [7]" To refute means to prove wrong - the word should be replaced with deny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Resistance is also spelled wrong: "plenty of resistence from opposition " Lex123 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lex123

estimating meager 300,000 casualties
Let's just go ahead and take out that "meager." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.179.122.109 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed?
Can someone tell me what the problem is about neutrality in this article? --69.228.144.226 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the talk page you can easily find the POV conflicts. --69.239.175.29 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro
The intro is now way too long. I'm going to try something shorter.Kurzon (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I cut it down to a fraction of its former size.  I also tried to add (and hit the points for) links to the other associated Wikipedia articles on the subject (e.g., Eastern bloc, Population transfer, etc.).Mosedschurte (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done a new, shorter intro which I hope people will find more succint. I realise a lot of referenced information was deleted, but I think those details are best moved into the article itself.Kurzon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shortened some of that, and added back a few of the most obvious facts that have to be in a Stalin summary intro. Also, there were errors (e.g., "WWII", and the Warsaw Pact wasn't enacted until 1955).Mosedschurte (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers warrant mentioning don't you think? Dave3457 (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that an estimate of the number of people that died on Stalin's orders did not make it into the introduction. Imagine not sighting the number of Jews that died on Hitler's orders in his introduction.


 * The problem with the numbers is that they differ widely from source to source. One number, the number of executed for political charge is more or less consensual that is 1.4 million(if my memory serves me well). Their cases are in archives. All others are "excess deaths" and vary from less than 1 million to 100 million depending from the researchers and their methods. Some of those methods yields millions of victim if applied to the Great Depression in the USA, Marketing reforms of 1990ies in Russia or even the postwar decline of birth rates in Western Europe. Almost any numbers put in the lead are warranted to start an editorial war Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WWII in the lead
I noticed a heavy modifications of the lead that seem not completely correct.

During World War II, Stalin first made a pact with Hitler's Nazi Germany to divide Eastern Europe
 * The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been signed before the war started. Factual error.

pact with Hitler's Nazi Germany to divide Eastern Europe
 * The MRP didn't divide Eastern Europe. The secret protocol defined the "spheres of influence" that is not the same. Oversimplification.

then later fought against Germany on the Eastern Front (World War II) after Germany violated the pact.
 * Stalin personally had never fought on the Eastern Front. The Soviet Union, that sustained immense losses, partially due to Stalin's grave mistakes, did that. Awkvard wording. In addition, the mentioning of Stalins mistakes, that was present in the lead befor, had disappeared.

After the war, the Soviets under Stalin's rule were accused of committing Soviet war crimes
 * Accused by whom? Vague.

...purportedly involving the death and rape of millions of Eastern and Central Europeans. Death of millions of Eastern Europeans? Questionable. And, there is no serious evidences that the death and rape had been done "purportedly". Dusputable facts cannot be represented in the lead as well established. I don't think these modifications to improve the lead. I plan to restore the old version in close future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All fixed. M-R now pre-war and a non-aggression pact.  The secret protocols are where the agreement to divide the independent Eastern European countries occurred, which is directly from the intro of the M-R pact article.  War crimes accusation details are gone.


 * And I agree with the other editor -- the old lead was terrible, error-filled and far too long.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatelly, the modified paragraph is still non-satisfactoy. Of course, MRP should be mentioned in the lead, however, it is unclear to me why so big emphasis has been done on it whereas other Stalin's blunders or crimes were completely omitted. It is also necessary to mention that, the USSR didn't simply fought, but made a the decisive contrubution into the victory over Nazi Germany, and, unfortunatelly, this contribution  is associated with Stalin's name. That statement was present in the old version. I propose to restore the old version of this paragraph with small modifications (BTW, this version was a result of the extensive discussion, see above). In addition, this version of the paragraph isn't longer than the current version.


 * Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945),, an accomplishment watered down by accusations of questionable foreign policy steps, poor war time policy, and strategic blunders, proving that very few subjects related to Stalin are without controversy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's another example of how terrible the old lead was, making superfluous non-encyclopedic conclusions in the introduction such as "proving that very few subjects related to Stalin are without controversy" and that "an accomplishment watered down." Though all of that superfluous text, it also managed to not even explain the German alliance and pact breaking. The old intro was also filled with all sorts of back and forth argument on figures and the like. It was terrible in too many respects to even address.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC) You may rephrase it if you want Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Mosedschurte. I am also not satisfied with many WP articles. However, I always try avoid using the words like "terrible" to describe the preceeding versions. If the old version was superfluous, the most appropriate definition for the new one would be superficial. I concede that the old version was not optimal either, and these two concrete phrases, that rised your criticizm, are surely not the best ones. (They both were absent in the version proposed by me, BTW). It may be fixed in such a way, for instance:
 * Bearing the brunt of the Nazis' attacks, the Soviet Union under Stalin made the largest and most decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II (1939–1945),, despite Stalin's mistakes and controversal steps before and during the war, including questionable foreign policy steps, poor war time policy, and strategic blunders, that lead to immense military, civilian and material losses during the war.
 * As regards to MRP, the link to it is present in the proposed version. This is quite sufficient, taking into account that there is no consensus among scholars on its role in the WWII outbreak. Giving too much weight to it, at the cost of other events or factors, is redundant, or superfluorous...

Another problem is the seeming attempt to make an argument into a Wikipedia article introduction regarding what "caused" World War II (other than the actual invasion and shooting) and purported "mistakes" by Stalin and foreign policy. In short, this isn't the place for that. There are plenty of bulletin boards and other places for discussion addressing those issues.

Rather, this is the place for summarizing the major facts of Stalin's rule. Regarding WWII, there was a pact. It was broken when Germany invaded the Soviet part of the divided territories, which physically marked the starting of a war between the two by literal shooting. Whether the pact (or its breaking) should be judged a "mistake", whether Stalin's other actions should be judged as "strategic blunders" and judging which of those foreign policy and/or buildup "blunders" "lead to immense military, civilian and material losses during the war" are not the subject for an encyclopedic summary intro.

That's without even addressing all of the other numerous problems with such a paragraph, including that it's one long run on sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the two additional Wikilinks in the text above: (1) I just added the Operation Barbarossa link under the German invasion text, so that's now in and (2) the Case of Trotskyist Anti-Soviet Military Organization link, that was part of the 1930s Great Purge, and I added that Wikilink under the appropriate text earlier in the summary about the Great Purge.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is better now. However, indue weight still is given to MRP. If you want to summarise the major facts of Stalin's rule, why didn't you mention Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam? The "invading the countries held by the Soviets" is simply misleading (although formally correct), because you represent Barbarossa as a border conflict, that definitely wasn't the case from the very beginning. Hitler invaded the USSR. Full stop. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Purge Sentence in Intro
Just to be clear, and I don't think any editor is claiming this, not every target (or even close thereto) in the Great Purge was actually susepected of some sort of substantive corruption or treachery, even though those charges were formally brought in mass against hundreds of thousands of people. Large numbers of people, including just political dissidents, were targets.

I'm not saying any editor is making the claim that every victim was actually suspected of genuine corruption or treachery, but there is editing using language which would indicate such a result.

Rather, as part of the mechanics of the purge, they were all accused of such crimes, or of closely related crimes. Not necessarily genuinely suspected of actual criminal acts. I don't think there is disagreement here on edits, but the language is just not clear on a few edits.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MRP again
In the lead, the fragment "Shortly before World War II, the Soviet Union under Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler's Germany, which included a secret protocol to divide independent countries in Eastern Europe. The pact led to the Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics. After Germany violated the pact the Soviet Union fought against Germany." contained redundant phrases that give undue veight to MRP (taking into account that only few facts on WWII are mentioned). Either which included a secret protocol to divide independent countries in Eastern Europe or The pact led to the Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics should be removed. I removed the first one.

I generally agree with the new lead's style, so I oppose the tendency to inflate a lead. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the editor that added the Soviet Baltic invasion part of that paragraph (some other editor added it yesterday), but I just did correct the most recent edit which made the least sense of all: taking out any mention of the protocols (which were in before any edits yesterday), but leaving in the Soviet invasion of Poland, etc.  Then it just appears as a unilateral Soviet mass multi-country invasion without agreement.


 * I've shortened and merged the sentences, which hopefully clears it up. There shouldn't be an issue anyway -- this all obviously happened, and were some of the most important events in Eastern European history.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been said about Stalin's role in the war. The sentence " After Germany violated the pact the Soviet Union fought against Germany" is about the USSR, not Stalin. As regards to Stalin, two magor things can be credited to him: numerous strategic blunders that lead to the USSR's immense losses and political steps that dramatically increased the influence of the USSR in the post-war world. Nothing has been said about that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still Polonicentric: gives too much attention to the region affected by MRP protocol and omitting more global consequences ot it (BTW, if Poland, Finland and Baltic countries are mentioned explicitly, why Bessarabia is omitted?). The most important consequence of the MRP was the start of WWII. I agree that it was not the sole, and, probably, not the major reason WWII started, but it definitely triggered it, and pre-determined the course of the war (at least, of its first part). Therefore the sentences:"... including secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe, leading to a Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics." should be replaced with:"...which changed the political map of Central Europe, triggered WWII, and pre-determined its course."


 * This is too broad a subjective statement for an encyclopedic intro: "which changed the political map of Central Europe, triggered WWII, and pre-determined its course." As just one example, WWII had many "triggers". And the "pre-determined its course" judgment is, well, I'm not even going to say it.  Just re-read it.


 * Getting back to facts for an encyclopedic intro: (i) the Pact occurred, (ii) it contained secret protocols effectively dividing Eastern Europe and (iii) the Pact members then invaded their arranged divided portions. Hitler then broke the pact by first invading the Soviet held parts of Poland and Lithuania, directly attacking Soviet troops therein on the first day, starting the Eastern Front portion of the war.  Thus, as it stands now:


 * "Shortly before World War II, the Soviet Union under Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler's Germany, including secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe, followed by a Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics."Mosedschurte (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Using your words, I would say that this is too narrow subjective statement for an encyclopedic intro. Since the intro is supposed to mention only the most important facts, your version implies that the only important facts about Stalin in the WWII context are (i) the MRP; (ii) secret protocol (iii) invasion of Cetnral Europe states. I agree that the intro should contain more facts than judgements. Therefore, let's focus on the most important facts.

As regards to "followed by a Soviet invasion of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics" I still think it is too detailed (and, at the same time Bessarabia remains beyond the scope). --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The most important facts about Stalin's role in WWII are:
 * The MRP (the immediate cause of WWII outbreak);
 * Stalin's strategic blunders (immense human losses, the USSR at the edge of catastrophe);
 * Stalin's alliance with the UK/US (Big three that won the war);
 * Stalin's Yalta and Potsdam argeements (that had more profound and long lasting effects than MRP);
 * Stalin's promise to enter the war against Japan (otherwise the war in Pacific would last much longer and Mao would never come to power in China).
 * I am not sure the list is complete. I see you are really intended to improve the intro's style. Let's think together about the most important events that deserve mentioning.

I am interested in improving the article, but you can't be seriously suggesting that (i) the pact with Hitler to divide Eastern Europe, (ii) the subsequent invasion of much of Eastern Europe (the first of Stalin's then 15 year tenure as leader) and (iii) the invasion then by the Germans of Poland and Lithuania directly attacking occupying Soviet troops to start the fighting between Germany and the Soviets should not be mentioned in a multi-paragraph summary of Stalin. I don't think you are -- these being some of the most well-known events not just of Stalin's tenure, but in European history -- but I just want to clarify.

Regarding what moves of Stalin were judged to be a "strategic blunder" pre and post war, these are subjective decisions to be hashed out by historians. It is not really the subject of an encyclopedic summary of what actually happened. It is more a subject to be placed in the appropriate section of the underlying article. Regarding the specifics of losses, I'll add something. Regarding allied conferences during the war, those seem more a subject for the underlying article than the summary.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree the "the Soviet Union fought against Germany. 10.7 million Soviet military personnel died in the war, the most of any country, along with 12.4 million Soviet civilians. " to be a good style. In addition, it is quite unclear what relation does it have to Stalin. This is the article about Stalin, not the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is a straw man argument. I didn't tell MRP should not be mentioned. My point is that it cannot constitute 50% of the WWII related paragraph. Without any doubts, MRP is among the most well-known events, however, not the sole event associated with Stalin's name. In addition, there is no consensus on the MRP either, therefore, I can use your own terminology and to conclude that it is more a subject to be placed in the appropriate section of the underlying article. My point, however, is that everything mentioned above deserves to be in the summary, although not everything can be mentioned explicitly. Aut Caesar aut nihil.

There appears to be confusion regarding an "argument", and even bigger confusion about the meaning of the term straw man, but that's not worth going into. If you're seriously suggesting there would be some sort of consensus against merely mentioning the pact with Germany and subsequent division via mass invasion of Eastern Europe in a summary of Stalin, I guess you can keep on thinking that. Rather odd, and I'm not even sure what the end goal could possibly be, but I'm about done with that.

Regarding other info, I added in the large WWII losses because you suggested its importance above. I do so without the subjective label of calling them the result of "strategic blunders" in the intro. We should keep the intro factual. Frankly, I'm ambivalent about their inclusion in the intro (obviously a huge impact on the Soviet Union during Stalin's tenure, but they might be better left for the article). I'm going to drop in a wikilink reference to Yalta and the statements therein on the post-war Eastern Bloc. That the US and UK fought against Germany in World War II is fairly obvious and probably not worth devoting space to in a Stalin intro.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position - exactly what took place. Probably, the reason was that I didn't make myself clear enough;
 * Of course, the consensus on merely mentioning the pact with Germany will be hard to achieve, because the nationalistic Central European editors are very active on that and similar pages. However, majority of them are quite able to accept logical arguments, so I am optimistic about that. If we want to summarize the Stalin's role during WWII in one short paragraph, we definitely can just merely mention MRP and briefly describe its consequence in such words: "was an immediate cause of WWII and lead to long lasting changes of the political map of Central Europe". You can change wording, but I don't think it makes sense to expand the sentence any more.
 * Adding large WWII losses makes no sence and deteriorates the summary. For this article it would be enough to say they were immense, however such a statement makes sense if, and only if, the explanations have been done about Stalin's relation to them. Once again, it is not the USSR history article, but the article about Stalin;
 * Stalin's blunders during the first period of the German-Soviet war are quite obvious, and most historians, from Western liberals to Soviet nationalists agree about that, therefore, I see no problem to mention them in the context of military, civilian and material losses in one short sentence;
 * "That the US and UK fought against Germany in World War II is fairly obvious" (BTW it's another example of a "straw men" fallacy), however, the fact that the USSR under Stalin's leadership was their major ally, that, by the way, bore a major brunt of WWII, has direct relation to the artilce and definitely worth devoting space to in a Stalin intro. I don't think summary can consist of non-obvious things only;
 * We don't have to mention Yalta explicitly. I agree that it can be introduced as a wikilink. In connection to that two things have to be pointed out: splitting Europe onto spheres of infuence and Stalin's promise to declare a war on Japan. The latter had probably even more profound effect than MRP, because led to fast (much faster than the US expected) surrender of Japan and tipped a balance to the Mao's side;
 * The Stalin's friendship with Mao ("Stalin and Mao listen to us") definitely deserve mentioning, since it affected the fate of 1/6 of the mankind and lead to formation on one more nuclear power (that would never happen without that);
 * It is not fully correct to say that "Stalin installed communist governments in most of Eastern Europe", because in some countries (e.g. Yugoslavia) they rose to power simply because they were the most active force opposing Nazis. In Greece, for instance, special efforts of the UK were needed to prevent Communists from coming to power. We need to reword this sentence.
 * I wouldn't say that the US/UK were open to post-war collaboration with Stalin. I am not a Stalin's proponent, but it would be incorrect to state that the responsibility for the Cold War lays on Stalin only.

Re: "Of course, the consensus on merely mentioning the pact with Germany will be hard to achieve, because the nationalistic Central European editors" -> First, this characterization of other Wikipedia editors is a gross violation of Wikipedia civility policy. And, bluntly, it's inaccurate, as is usually the case with most gross generalizations. For example, I'm not a "nationalistic Central European editor". Just someone who knows that, say, the '39 Pact with Hitler and subsequent division of the entirety of Eastern Europe (and then the breaking of that pact beginning the Easter Front war) is an important event in Stalin's tenure, to put it about as mildly as possible.

Re: "Adding large WWII losses makes no sence and deteriorates the summary. For this article it would be enough to say they were immense, however such a statement makes sense if, and only if, the explanations have been done about Stalin's relation to them. Once again, it is not the USSR history article, but the article about Stalin" -> After adding the losses only after you suggested it earlier above, I just reduced it to just the aggregate (23 million), but this simply can't be blamed on Stalin in an encyclopedic intro. It was clearly a vitally important part of Stalin's tenure because it meant the loss of over 15% of the entire Soviet population -- one of the largest such losses in world history -- and demonstrated the Soviets bearing the brunt of losses during the War. A discussion about whether they died because of "strategic blunders", as you put it, would be a subject for discussion in the appropriate section of the article dealing with losses.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to address the Soviets' instrumental role (I agree that this has to be in a Stalin summary) and their bearing of the brunt of losses in that defeat without subjective blaming of Stalin or other judgments, this does it in a form proper for an encyclopedic intro with underlying text wikilinks to the specific related articles: "After Germany violated the pact in 1941, the Soviet Union joined the Allies to play an instrumental role in helping to defeat Germany, resulting in the death of over 23 million Soviets, the largest death toll for any country in the war." The promise months before the end of the war to declare war on Japan is one specific part of the instrumental role the Soviets played in the Axis defeat and is best discussed in the appropriate section of the article.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It is not fully correct to say that "Stalin installed communist governments in most of Eastern Europe", because in some countries (e.g. Yugoslavia) they rose to power simply because they were the most active force opposing Nazis. In Greece, for instance"  -> The article actually says "most of Eastern Europe", not all, and Greece is not in Eastern Europe.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the support of Mao, the Soviets were condemned by the U.N. for supporting Mao in 1952, though there is some dispute whether any such Soviet support occurred during the Chinese Civil War.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, I never told the "nationalists" are always wrong. I am just saying that the discussion may be hard; sometimes I am able to convince them, sometimes I have to agree with their arguments. Moreover, I never told that all editors who tend to give undue (to my opinion) weight to MRP are "nationalistic Central European editors". I said what I said, namely that many editors from Central Europe frequently put undue emphasis on MRP. Obviously, they are not internationalists... Summarizing all said above, I conclude the paragraph needs in a serious modification. (Although I support many changes made by you). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Re1. I don't think characterization of some editors as "nationalist" to be any violation of WP policy, because in this concrete case it bears no negative connotations. It is just a statement of the fact. Some of these editors are too focused on their own nation and, as a result, sometimes give undue weight to the local events in the articles dealing with global subjects. By the way, discussion with this type editors may be very fruitful. I myself changed my vision of some historical events during these discussions. I am trying to be polite but I hate politecorrectness, because it is something that (i) is not polite (ii) is not correct. However, in contrast to many other editors, I have never been engaged in edit war...
 * Re:Re2. One more straw man fallacy. I never proposed to add the losses. My proposal was to mention that the losses were immense, if, and only if, this is done in the Stalin's blunders context.
 * "The Soviet's instrumental role" is a humiliation of the whole nation. You probably are unaware that more people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of World War II combined. Note, I mean not only the Allies. The USSR inflicted more human military losses on the Axis (whole Axis, not only European Axis members) than all other Allies taken together. Using your terminology, it would be more correct to say that it was the US/UK/ROC that played instrumental role in the German-Soviet war. Definitely, this phrase is incorrect and insulting. I will cahnge it in close future if you don't do that.
 * "The promise months before the end of the war to declare war on Japan"... is a little bit illogical. The war ended on Aug 15 (or Sept 2, if you want) due to two major events: strategic bombing of home islands and Soviet invasion of vital Japanese continental possessions in Manchuria (compare the scale of the former with that of SSJW, and you will see that this operation surpassed the whole 1941-45 SSJW campaign). On Feb 1945, the Americans expected the war to last at least one more year...
 * "...and Greece is not in Eastern Europe." Greece is an example of the country, where significant British efforts were needed to deny Communist's coming to power. This demonstrates that in some European countries Communists were very popular immediatelly after the war, so no special efforts (including Stalin's efforts) were needed to install Communists regime (e.g. in Yugoslavia). Of course, this wasn't true in Poland and some other countries, but, nevertheless, the phrase is a little bit misleading.
 * As regards to Mao, what was the mechanism, to your opinion, of obtaining nuclear and rocket technologies by Chinese Communists?


 * Falsely asserting another editor's bias is a violation of the Wikipedia Civility and Personal Attack policies. Whether such nationalists are "good" or "bad" is beyond the point.  It's better to stick the facts without such attacks.  As a complete aside, and this isn't important, I don't even live in Eastern or Central Europe, but it wouldn't matter if I did.
 * Falsely...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "'The Soviet's instrumental role' is a humiliation of the whole nation. You probably are unaware that more people fought and died on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of World War II combined.
 * ->First, I was the one that actually added the Soviets lost over 23 million people, more than any other country, to the intro of this article, so your charge about my understanding (again, another statement about me personally) is rather bizarre.  And, as as aside, I am most definitely aware of the tremendous casualties on the Eastern Front with relation to the rest of the war.
 * ->Second, how can possibly playing "an instrumental role" be "a humiliation of the whole nation"? This may be a language issue (and there is nothing wrong with that).  The term means a cause or agency, and is often used like the following: "Mr. Jenkins, the key witness, played an instrumental role in solving the crime."
 * ->Third, the total number of deaths in World War II was over 72 million (over 25 million military). The Soviets suffered over 23 million of those deaths (10.7 million military).  I actually posted the wikilink with the page to all of those figures in the Stalin summary.
 * ->I just changed "instrumental" to "vital". Hopefully, this will clear up any problems with the language.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "As regards to Mao, what was the mechanism, to your opinion, of obtaining nuclear and rocket technologies by Chinese Communists?"
 * ->My opinion isn't important. More importantly, China went nuclear over 10 years after Stalin's death, so I'm not sure about why this point is relevant to a Stalin article, much less the intro of a Stalin article.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I'm going to significantly expand, with sources, the section of the article discussing Stalin and the Soviets vital role in the defeat of Germany. It's merely one of many sections that is currently sparse and poorly sourced.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we move in right direction. However, the paragraph still needs some optimisation. The most obvious thing are:
 * I still don't understand why invasion of Poland, Finland and annexation if Baltic countries (the latter was annexation rather than invasion) was mentioned in details, but another, more important consequence of the pact, namely, the outbreak of WWII, wasn't mentioned at all. Your rationale seems not satisfactory. In addition, it is still unclear for me why in that case you avoid mentioning annexation of Bessarabia and North Bukovina. If you decided to name all these countries explicitly, the latter should be named too. However, these details seem redundant in this article. To my opinion, it would be sufficient to mention expansion of the USSR territory west at her western neighbours' cost.
 * "Vital role in helping to defeat Germany" is also incorrect: the USSR fought against all Axis members. Moreover, Romania and Hungary fought against the USSR only (leaving Finland, not an Axis member, beyond the scope). The USSR didn't help to defeat Axis: others Allies helped the USSR do that.
 * The USSR's role is not relevant to this article if we leave the Stalin's role beyond the scope.
 * In Yalta, agreement was achieved regarding Poland only, not Central Europe as whole.
 * Once again, you avoid mentioning obvious facts and opinions on Stalin's rule and introduce obvious facts on the USSR history instead. This is not a USSR history article, however.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The outbreak of the war is, of course, listed in the intro. No subjective judgment is made regarding the reasons for it in the intro.  The Bessarabia and north Bukovina invasions were added per your comments (I added sources for the invasions later in the article, as well), and I think it's fairly obvious that the invasion of any bordering country is of a level of importance for possible mention in an intro for a leader.
 * 2) Agreed. Your edit of the Axis was more accurate.  Regarding the characterization of who's "helping" who, I think they all helped each other, but our opinion isn't important.
 * Re: "The USSR's role is not relevant to this article if we leave the Stalin's role beyond the scope." Stalin's role is obviously not beyond the scope. Stalin's most important role, of course, was what he directed the USSR -- which he lead -- to do.  I think this goes without saying.
 * 1) Actually, at the Yalta Conference, the parties agreed that democracies would be established and all countries would hold free elections and European order restored per this statement: "The establishment of order in Europe, and the rebuilding of national economic life, must be achieved by processes which will enable the liberated peoples to destroy the last vestiges of Nazism and fascism and to create democratic institutions of their own choice."Mosedschurte (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be surprised, but the outbreak of the WWII, as well as the fact that MRP was an immediate cause for that is not listed in the intro (if you do not state seriously that the war started with the Soviet invasion of Poland). In addition, you misinterpreted my words again: I didn't propose to include annexation of Bessarabia into the lead. Quite the contrary, my point was that giving these details is redundant. In addition, you mix invasion and annexation, although these two things are quite different.

ALL reverting done without proper discussion will be met with resistance
The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page. In addition to this removing sections that are fully sited, neutral and meet wikipedia quality standards, and replacing them with material that is widely accepted as biased and anti-NPOV wont be tolerated.

I mean this when I say that being genuine jerks and attempting to put the NPOV discussions back to square 1 will easily start an edit war, something that noone cares for. Seriously guys, don't dick around, ninja edit, or vandalise this article. I don't care how much you hate Stalin, it's just not right.

This is one of the more controversial articles on Wikipedia, treat it with respect, and uphold a degree of formalism when you go about your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Somehow I don't think that an unregistered anon can legitimately claim to speak for "leftist community of wikipedia", particularly since I'm sure a good part of that leftist community is just as anti-Stalinist as, well, most sane people in this world.radek (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The statements were not only ridiculous and in violation of Wikipedia policy, but frankly bizarre. As was the revision of 100+ edits on Wikipedia weirdly claiming "The leftist community of wikipedia."  I suppose it's late on a weekend.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes I forget the 'Leftist' community is more interested in Bashing Stalin and glorifying Trotsky then they are at combatting those they claim to hate. Fixed.


 * Your latest claim that "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page" states yet another violation of Wikipedia policy: WP:Ownership of articles. As is made clear in the policy, you cannot stop other people from editing your material by placing constraints on editing.  No one owns these articles.


 * Even more bizarrely, you seems to think you alone speak for the "Marxist-Lenninst community" and that they collectively own this right.


 * Congratulations for reverting hundreds of edits six times in a row and getting the page locked.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Don't Revert 100+ Edits By Multiple Editors Adding Numerous Sources Without Explanations
A user attempted to revert to a revision 100 edits ago, by numerous editors adding large numbers of cited sources, with no explanation given, in gross violation of Wikipedia policy.

Even worse, an overtly political (and frankly puzzling) reason was given for this violation on the Talk page: "the leftist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits". Along with characterizing all other editors with "I don't care how much you hate Stalin."

I don't like to go to ANI with relatively new and inexperienced editors such as this one, but I will with these gross violations if they continue.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid it in future, please, discuss your edits before doing any serious modification of the article. Although a reversion of 100 edits is not the best option, doing a profound modification of such a high level article without any discussion or even explanation is a good reason to revert these changes.

You were the one who deleted well sourced material with little explanation.

Mosedchurte, you are attempting to replace a well sourced introduction, with more material, mroe sources and references, and a better compliance with NPOV standards with your own 'Shortened' and very 1 sided account.Valeofruin (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is both false and ridiculous.


 * Along with the other editors, I've added literally countless sources to an article with huge sections that were (and still remain in many parts) completely unsourced. There were no well-sourced sections deleted by me.  The only part I can remember deleting was a piece of text that was literally word-for-word a copy of another piece of text elsewhere in the article.  And the intro was severely decreased in size, and greatly improved over the argumentative back-and-forth style before, by several editors.


 * I just noticed that you again attempted to revert well over 100 edits made by several editors, including numerous additions of new sourced material, without any explanation, in gross violation of Wikipedia policy, as discussed above. Fortunately, another editor reversed this mass destructive reversion.


 * As stated, I don't wish to go to ANI, but such blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, especially given the overtly political (and frankly odd) reasoning provided, will leave me and other editors no choice at some point.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Incredible editing
There really is incredible editing going on in this article. Multiple users are re-writing this article on a daily basis. Just in the past 11 days there have been over 170 edits! And sadly that is not unusual for this article if one takes a look at the long history. Has a new groundbreaking book on Uncle Joe just been released or something? I don't think there is. There is no new information that has come out that warrants this type of ferocious editing. Next week someone else will make 100 edits and re-write this whole thing, then he will get reverted the week after and so on. I think we should lock this article from editing from non-admins or at least have an experienced admin come here, take a look at what is going on, and come up with a solution. --Tocino 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the many other editors works, but I'm mostly adding sources right now from books I have. Maybe some other TV show ran on major networks that has raised interest in the article, but I haven't seen it.


 * The article right now is essentially completely unsourced in huge parts -- a frankly shocking result in 2009 on Wikipedia for such a major figure in World History like Stalin.


 * Part of that on the English version of Wikipedia is that it seems to have sort of been ignored by a large part of the community for years, with people just copying and pasting in text from internet pages without sources. Much of it appears to be fairly accurate (probably copied and pasted from Encyclopedias), with some exceptions, but it really needs sources.  I'm trying to add some, but it's a long process going through books on a Sunday afternoon.


 * It's a shame that a lot of celebrities' articles on Wikipedia are better sourced right now than an article on such a substantial historical figure as Stalin, but that's the reality of a community based resource. More people pay attention to Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan than World War II.  It doesn't really get any sadder than that.  Mosedschurte (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The 100 edits
Occured in a short period of time, and replaced a very important piece of the article with little explanation, few citations, and no reguard for NPOV.

Instead of asking me to justify why i revert them why don't you justify what warranted them in the first place?

They are designed to ensure readers get a negative picture of Stalin right off the bat, it does not acknowledge the existence of an alternative point of view, it's biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not how Wikipedia works, and is a gross violation of Wikipedia policies, especially for overtly political (and frankly puzzling) reasons such as "the leftist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits" (never mind that you don't speak for us), along with characterizing all other editors with "I don't care how much you hate Stalin."  All while attempting to wipe out well over a hundred edits by numerous editors, each made to improve the article for the differing reasons given with each.


 * Each editor has provided the reasons for each edit with each edit. That's how Wikipedia works.  Many have provided additional sources which improved the article.


 * Simply reverting 100+ edits with no reason other than some overtly political slogan is about as big a violation as it gets.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing perhaps, but I remind you it was you who removed well cited material with little explanation to begin with, not me. Valeofruin (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The explanation is that we wanted to make a shorter, more succint intro.Kurzon (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but you did more then just shorten it, you cut out 1 side of the story and removed the NPOV balance yet again. Valeofruin (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected again
Edit wars are ugly. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They are, unfortunately they are destined to happen when a group of people gets together and removes a chunk of an article along with about 30 citations and replaces it with a 1 sided, undetailed, and uncited, hunk of material, then complains when someone reverts '100 edits' and ignores the fact that they were all made by a select group of individuals.

Oh and let us not forget that they do all this without keeping the other editors up to date on the talk page.

Shortening the intro is fine, if you can do it without replacing "Stalin was a controversial figure" with "Stalin was a heartless monster who killed millions of people and had a snack"

Valeofruin (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see how deleting 30 citations improves the article at all. Also I must keep reminding those who doing hundreds of edits that this article was once a featured article candidate, so it doesn't need a radical overhaul. And finally I am opposed to making this article read as though Joseph Stalin was Satan reincarnated. --Tocino 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

jpgordon: The protection sounds necessary -- completely agree -- but as a heads up, just seconds before you protected it (exact same minute), Valefruin wiped out the 100+ edits by mulitple editors again.

I think that's literally the sixth time he's done that in a day, with multiple editors restoring the 100+ edits over that time period.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To begin with the 100 edits were mostly yours, and to end with you completely leave out the fact that you had wiped out a massive, well cited piece of the article to begin with, without even bothering to ask us first on the talk page, and replaced it with a poorly cited, undetailed section obviously written from an anti-Stalinist viewpoint, without even taking the time to write a single statement 'as the enemy'.

You also called Stalin the 'De facto' head of the soviet union, a fact which amongst many of your other edits is highly disputed and probably not true. Valeofruin (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition Jpgordon or anyone else who Mosed approaches to try to get 'his version' re-instated, I implore you, use your common sense. Read my article without any bias, be a decent judge and make an honest descision as to which intro you feel is better sourced and more neutral. Please, go back, look at the history of the article and my reverts, try to see why the descision to revert was made, and make your choice based on the facts. Valeofruin (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to be uncivil, but not only are those charges about me entirely false, but they are frankly bizarre. When did I call Stalin the "De Facto" head of the Soviet Union, and by the way, as an aside he was obviously both the "de jure" and "de facto" head of the Soviet Union (as are most leaders of their countries), but when did I even say that.


 * Getting back to the point, multiple editors have edited the article, and each given their very different reasons for each edit. Many have just added sources.


 * In fact, multiple editors have reversed your mass wipeouts of the article -- which you've now done 6 times, along with troubling comments in violation of Wikipedia policy.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you made that mistake, but there were so many edits by you and a few others that I could not really seperate whos lies were whoms accurately. The page was clearly vandalised at some point, and if you did nothing to cause it you certainly did nothing to fix it.

It is still all beside the point. What I said or didn't say is beside the point. Who edited what is beside the point.

The point it before you (by this I mean the editors that were involved in this whole 'shortening' of the intro, not you specifically) started your mass editing (it was clearly mass editing, people even left comments as to the sudden spike of activity here) of the article, deleting of key information, and citations without discussing it, the intro retained a speck of neutrality, afterwords it contained none. With all this in mind it was reverted.

Did alot of Edits have to be reverted? yes. But the majority of the edits were made without a real reason, other then to just bash Stalin, and the product before them was still a higher quality then the product after them. Valeofruin (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

->This is yet another violation of Wikipedia policy by attacking others as liars.
 * Re: "I assumed you made that mistake, but there were so many edits by you and a few others that I could not really seperate whos lies were whoms accurately."

->You mean beside the point of you, again, wrongly accusing me of something I didn't do?
 * Re: "Who edited what is beside the point.:

->This is an overbroad, false and ridiculous portrayal of the editors and edits of this article, and it has no place under WP:Civility.
 * Re: "But the majority of the edits were made without a real reason, other then to just bash Stalin."

->This is yet another violation of Wikipedia policy. In addition to being an overtly political motive for edits, it also violates WP:Ownership of articles. As is made clear in the policy, you cannot unilaterally implement a requirement to prevent other people from editing your material by placing constraints on editing. No one owns these articles. Moreover, the idea that one person speaks for the "Marxist-Lenninist" community is incorrect, nor does any community own any article on Wikipedia.
 * Re: ''"The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page"

Let me remind to everybody that the most optimal way to edit the articles of such a type is: In addition, one has to be perceptive to other's arguments. '''-- As this is a high-profile and high-traffic article, all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made. Changes which are not supported by a consensus on the talk page will probably be removed until there is a consensus to include them.'''-- --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Put the new version of the modified section on the talk page
 * Discuss the proposed changes; explain the reason for the proposed modification;
 * Wait until the consensus is achieved;
 * Modify the article per consensus.
 * Although the way chosen by Mosedschurte initially seems easier and simpler, it leads to an inevitable conflict.
 * I think, it is a good time for some administrator to put the following text into the very beginning of the article (that has been done in the WWII article):

In no way did I claim ownership of the article, merely warned against vandalism without discussion.

If you choose to spit on someone elses opinions, It won't be tolerated, it shouldn't. Trying to, as another user put it 'Write and article that reads as if Stalin is the reincarnate of Satan', and drown out those who actually admire Stalin and have evidence that rejects what is pinned against him, is a slap in the face. Its not claiming ownership, and it's not being uncivil, just a warning against vandalization, and a reminder to stop intentionally (as you must have known after reading the article that there is more then 1 universal opinion on Stalin) ruining the NPOV of the intro. The warning of course being that any edits you make that someone feels is extremely biased, or designed to attack them, their idealology, heros or anything of the like, WILL be reverted, and rightfully so. Valeofruin (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

->Not only is this, again, an overtly political reason for making edits (or reverting) on Wikipedia, but it is flatly false regarding other editors of this article. Most of the edits the rest of the editors of this article made were not made to "drown out those who admire Stalin" (uh, okay) or a "slap in the face". This entire line of reasoning requiring pre-approval of edits is WP:Ownership and includes violations of WP:Civility mischaracterizing others. This is not the way Wikipedia works. In fact, it's the opposite of the way Wikipedia works.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "and drown out those who actually admire Stalin and have evidence that rejects what is pinned against him, is a slap in the face."

I also notice very few of your arguements involve the actual Content of the article. You are just making Character attacks.

If I broke the rules on a talk page I deserve the be removed from the Wikipedia community, but that is hardly a solid arguement as to why your version of the article, complete with all it's bells and whistles (and hopefully some citations) should stand and mine should go.

How is your neutral? What reason did you have to revert mine? Can you think of 1 single reason aside from simple principle, or personal opinion, as to why the actual content of my intro is no good?

It is well cited, it writes as the enemy, expresses NPOV, and it quite detailed.

Is it long for an intro? Oh my yes! But for an article this controversial, with so many conflicting accounts in play I would expect nothing less. Valeofruin (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And P.S. My article is still neutral reguardless of my political beliefs.

If people with alternative points of view are not permitted to have their voices recognized, if I am to be censored because I like Stalin, then what is the point of NPOV? All the things that make this encyclopedia great go out the window and you may as well read Brittanica.

Do I have a political agenda? and Objective? a Mission? On this article?

YES I do! My goal is to ensure it remains fair and balanced. To allow this article, like this encyclopedia to retain its reputation as the fair and non-biased source of knowledge. Believe me if it was Pro-Stalin I wanted I would have refused to write as the enemy, and my original revision immediately undone as vandalism. No, I'm afraid my only goal here is to ensure this wiki is a neutral article, that allows people to approach the question of Stalin with an open mind, and draw their own conclusions, as opposed to being told in the first paragraph that hes a dictator and a psychopath.Valeofruin (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

->I have not made a single character attack. ->Regarding substance, the other editors of this article were the only one discussing substance with each edit. You simply deleted all such edits (luckily, most are back except the intro) with the line "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits".
 * Re: "I also notice very few of your arguements involve the actual Content of the article. You are just making Character attacks."

->I don't have a "version of the article." Other editors of this article, including me, made a lot of individual edits -- most were just adding various individual sources, some with a sentence or two, in various sections of the article. You kept deleting all of them wholesale. Luckily, the only deletions now are just in the intro (and even that you snuck in seconds before the administrator locked the page) and the other additions to the article remain. ->In fact, almost every piece of new text added by editors that you previously attempted to delete actually included sources, which the article lacks. Other editors have been trying to strengthen the article by providing them.
 * Re: "hardly a solid arguement as to why your version of the article, complete with all it's bells and whistles (and hopefully some citations) should stand and mine should go."

->There is no "your." There were large numbers of individual edits by many editors. This is how Wikipedia works. Editors add information and edit articles. ->More importantly, the prior additions to the article by other editors (including me) were each individual sentences in various parts, along with sources (if not, the few sentences I added without sources were directly from other Wikipedia articles that were wikilinked).
 * Re: "How is your neutral?"

->Huh?
 * Re: "it writes as the enemy"

->As another editor noted, the old intro -- which was the one thing you jammed back in before the protection, had several deficiencies, to put it mildly. It was long, rambling, contained arguments by "critics" and "proponents" back-and-forth best left for the article (not an intro), did not Wikilink many of the underlying Stalin articles on Wikipedia and somehow, even with its huge length, left out vast portions of the underlying article from its summary. And that's just the beginning of addressing it's issues. ->Thus, several editors edited the intro. You then reversed them all -- every single one -- without a single substantive reason given, other than political rants, such as "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page" and the other editors of the page purportedly attempting to "drown out those who actually admire Stalin and have evidence that rejects what is pinned against him, is a slap in the face." Mosedschurte (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Is it long for an intro? Oh my yes! But for an article this controversial, with so many conflicting accounts in play I would expect nothing less."


 * There was actually no reason to protect this article. User Valeofruin (essentially an anon, and given his style someone should check the IP address) basically violated 3RR policy by reverting about 6 times in less than a few hours. All that was needed was at least a temporary block of this user rather than a protection of the article as whole. Vof's edits were, rightly (per WP:Fringe) reverted by multiple editors who have worked hard on this article in the past. There really was no 'edit war' going on, just reverting of borderline vandalism by an unregistered user. Unfortunately, given the protection now in place, the lead to the article now reads like complete POV whitewashing. It's as if the lead to the article on Hitler meandered about how "Some people Hitler of being responsible for death of six million Jews but others very strongly disagree". The original lead was well referenced and NPOV (just because someone looks bad, because of their actions, that does not make an article POV). Quite simply, the troublesome user in question (who has the temerity to speak for the entire "leftist community of Wikipedia" and insults others when called on this) should be blocked (and again, check for sock puppetry as this isn't a first instance of these kinds of edits), the original lead restored and the article unprotected.radek (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Theres no sock Puppetry involved, nor is there anything wrong with demanding that users abide by WP:NPOV and WP:Writing for the Enemy.

As for Hitler I would see nothing wrong with such an Edit. Though I do note theres alot more 'Stalinists' (Including entire countries such as North Korea), then there are Neo Nazis, wikipedia is not the only demographic in the world. Also I again point out that If my actions on the Talk page warrant me being blocked I see nothing wrong with that. Rules are rules.

But the fact that the content of the article is questionable has nothing to do with me, It is a seperate issue altogether.

bash me and my actions all you like, but you have contributed absolutely nothing to resolving the debate.

Valeofruin (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Radek: Unfortunately, in retrospect, I think you're correct. Also, I know I (and I'm sure other editors) wished to add cites and sources to portions of the article and now can't do so because of Valeofruin's repeated mass reverts.  I actually had broken out books and was adding individual source cites to the various large unsourced parts of the article, and I can't do anything now with it locked.

->Don't forget that he later changed it to "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits done without proper discussion, and explanations being placed first on the talk page" -- simultaneously both improperly giving an overtly political motive for his mass reverts, along with setting up a unilateral editing permission entirely in violation of WP:Ownership of articles.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Quite simply, the troublesome user in question (who has the temerity to speak for the entire "leftist community of Wikipedia" and insults others when called on this) should be blocked"


 * I agree. I contributed material with citations which all disappeared when Valofruin reverted the article (although the current revision includes them, only because the article was locked, preventing him from reverting them yet again). The lead as it stands now is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Throwing around names of controversial fringe figures like Douglas Tottle and Ludo Martens is a bit like including David Irving and Ernst Zündel in the lead of the Hitler article, with the assertion that not all agree with the events regarding the Holocaust. This would not be accepted. The debates of historians regarding the famine should be relegated to the Holodomor section of the article, if anything. And I felt the lead prior to his reverts was acceptable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd go further and say that mentioning any single historian's name is not appropriate when dealing with a figure on whom so much has been written by so many.Kurzon (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. First of all, valeofruin's massive revert was inappropriate without discussion. We get to do that for vandalism and BLP issues, not for disagreements regarding content. Secondly, if valeofruin believes himself to be representing the "leftist community of Wikipedia", he must step away from the article, and perhaps all others, as we only have one community on Wikipedia: the one dedicated to neutral point of view, reliable sourcing, and Wikipedia's collaborative processes. I'm sure editors working together in good faith can work this out together. I suggest pretending this latest kerfuffle did not happen, returning the article to the state before valeofruin undid the work of many editors, and then discussing what is wrong with the modified article. Does this sound reasonable? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "I suggest pretending this latest kerfuffle did not happen, returning the article to the state before valeofruin undid the work of many editors, and then discussing what is wrong with the modified article. Does this sound reasonable?" 
 * ->Absolutely. This was the version just before the last mass revert, which happened just a few seconds before you protected the page.  Many editors had been adding various sources right up until that point.
 * ->Discussion of any disagreed with changes is definitely the way to go. For example, on the intro, numerous discussions and changes had been made to particular parts of that intro.  Sticking to the facts, there is actually quite a lot that isn't controversial and is agreed upon by everyone when a little bit of the editor characterization is pulled back and the substance itself is discussed.
 * ->Also, the vast majority of edits wiped out were just source and detail additions that weren't even controversial.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. However, let me point out again that the Valeofruin's actions would have no formal groung at all if the massive modifications during several preceding days had been discussed on the talk page. Therefore, I propose to come to agreement that any substantial modification of the article may be removed if it hasn't been discussed on the talk page and if the consensus has not been achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well to begin with, I never said I represented the leftist community of wikipedia, what I said is that the leftist community of wikipedia would not stand for such a biased article. I later changed this to 'Marxist-Leninist' as I forget most leftists do not stand by Stalin as imo they should, but this is an entirely political issue.

People have done plenty to put words in my mouth and have me blocked and and otherwise censored. Never once did I claim ownership of the article, I merely pointed out that I am neither the first, nor the last Marxist Wikipedia user who will fight this article if it is obviously biased and does not provide fair representation to the other side (which falls far short of being WP:Fringe imo). Other claims that I had claimed owernership of the article, or made broad sweeping statements about editors are entirely a play on words. 'My version' vs 'your version', suggests only 2 sides of what was obviosuly an edit war. The version to which I had reverted, compared to the other. It had nothing to do with claiming ownership of the actual content of the article. Again I understand where you are coming from, but my intent was entirely lost in the claims against me, words are twisted, context removed, in what seems to me to be an attempt to just get me blocked and not actually help the article.

As for discussion, and a potential reversion to the version prior to my '100 edit revert', I would gladly agree to discussion and compromise, but they never lead anywhere. The article never get's changed.

I would agree to not make any reverts 'unnecessary' [disputed] changes etc. On the condition that GENUINE concerns over the neutrality of the article are addressed.

Believe me, multiple users (look at the history of the talk page) had expressed concerns over neutrality when this article first became disputed.

Genuine sources were provided, and discussion took place, and at the end of the day, a neutrality tag was slapped up, and after several months, absolutely nothing had been done to improve the quality of the article. That is what encouraged me to re-write the intro in the first place.

If there is to be a 'discuss before we change anything' rule, and if the article is to be reverted to the version BEFORE my reverts, then all editors need to agree that valid concerns will be addressed and not just pidgeonholed and their proponents flamed and locked in the closet.

Essentially where I am coming from is simple: The discuss before you edit rule is nice, but if you discuss and everyone tells you to piss off and refuses to edit, why get mad at them when they take matters into their own hands? Valeofruin (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia works by what we somewhat incorrectly call consensus; and we get mad at people who take matters into their own hands when they find they cannot arrive at a consensus. Now, are you going to continue reverting if I unlock and someone else restores the changes you wiped out? Hint: The correct answer is "no". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all editors recently involved in this article would be quite happy with Jpgordon's suggestions, except Valeofruin who believes that "I would gladly agree to discussion and compromise, but they never lead anywhere.". Given that s/he's violated 3RR twice with a period of few hours, the article should be reverted to the original, unprotected and if Valeofruin repeats the actions s/he should be simply blocked from editing this article.radek (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My proposal is not to unlock the article for a while. Let's take some section (e.g. the lead) and try to discuss different versions on the talk page. Achieving a consensus would mean that the article can be unlocked. BTW, such a discussion will show who is prone to a dialogue, and who deserves blocking.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * jpgorgon's suggestion, which the other editors have also asked for above (unlock and place to last version before mass revert by Valeofruin), was much better, and the only real one. The article can't stay locked pending some discussion and approval by an editor who simply reverts every single person's changed en masse, providing overt blunderbuss political reasons and WP:Ownership of articles reasons, and only then can other editors be allowed to make any edits.  That's not really how Wikipedia works.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cannot agree. Although WP encourages people to be bold, someone is too bold. So my proposal would help someone to pay more attention to the talk page. I myself intended to revert any serious edit if necessary explanation are not given on the talk page and if the editor didn't give a time to others to comment the proposed changes. (What I myself always do)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I know full well the concept of consensus. All I ask is that the other editors remain open to it. I will admit it was wrong to take matters into my own hands; sure, however I do not think that other editors can claim that this is a 1 sided affair. It is in the best interest of the article for us to ensure it remains fair an balanced and allots equal representation to all sides involved. Taking matters into my own hands is a bad decision, but flat out refusing to hear the other side of the story, and attempt to write the article from a NPOV does not do much to help either, in fact I would say it only encourages instances like this.

I will not do any more reverts, but I ask the other editors keep an open mind, and at least make SOME effort to neutralize this article.

However I must say Pauls suggestion of Discussion first, unlock later seems most sensible. I would really look forward to hearing some opinions and ideas in reguards to the actual article as opposed to '101 reasons why valeofruin is bad'. Valeofruin (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you think moving it back to before you wrongly took matters into your own hands would be more in keeping with our way of doing things here? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the history of the article, before I made my revert, some editors made major changes to the article, without first properly discussing it, this sparked the revert in the first place.

By taking matters into my own hands I am actually speaking of replacing the intro to the article that existed before 'my version' (Im sorry but it has to be labeled somehow), the version from back in september.

You must remember this dispute spans all the way back to last summer, this articles neutrality has been a subject of debate for much longer then just 4 or 5 days and 100 edits. Valeofruin (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

->This sounds like you're bringing a lot of baggage to the table regarding every editors edits. Many (including me) likely were not involved in any such dispute. Various editors on every Wikipedia article make edits for differing reasons, and they must be addressed, not all simply destroyed en masse (especially with only a broad political justification indicating article ownership). ->I agree with jpgordon, radeks, CJ Griffin, Kurzon, et al. The article should be unlocked and restored to the point just before before your last mass revert you slipped in seconds before the protection, to this version. And, of course, discussion on Talk pages should freely occur regarding any edit with which another editor disagrees. I encourage, and participate in, many such discussions.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "You must remember this dispute spans all the way back to last summer"

That is all good and well but my arguement still stands that between Jan 1 and today, major edits were made without getting any sort of REAL consensus (all that was given was a 'yep it can be shorter') I reverted them on the basis that they were not discussed, were anti- NPOV and were not as well cited as the previous version. In my mass revert I deleted some perfectly fine pieces of Info, and for that I appologize, but I still stand I had a justifiable reason for such an action. As for baggage again, you assume I point fingers. This debate HAS gone on since last summer, whether you were involved in it or not is no concern to me, whether you made your edits because of it is no concern to me. All I am pointing out is that the article has been under constant scrutiny, and that no consensus is ever reached. It always ends in mud slinging and nothing gets done. This is what encouraged me to take actions into my own hands and make major edits that helped result in the Jan 1st version, the version which later became contested by an editor or group of editors in the last few weeks and resulted in the conflict today. Valeofruin (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

->We've gone in circles on this, and I'm not sure what to tell you at this point, but such ownership and mass wipeouts of proper edits without explanation is just not how Wikipedia works. ->jpgordon tried to tell you this above, in fact he gave you an explicit "hint" on how to answer the question regarding such mass wipeout reverts, and yet you're still actually claiming they're proper. ->I think most editors on here have been amazingly civil in discussing this with you, despite your characterizations of others, but I'm not sure what else anyone else -- an administrator, other editors or anyone else -- can say at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "In my mass revert I deleted some perfectly fine pieces of Info, and for that I appologize, but I still stand I had a justifiable reason for such an action."

And I agreed I was done mass editing, hence I got the hint.

My Idea at this point is to discuss the actual content of the article with an open mind. I have been trying to get this point across, but judging by the fact that you still continue to point fingers at me, and shove all the blame over here, as opposed to dropping it and discussing how we can reach a consensus reguarding the articles content, I have failed.

I've said it a number of times, and I will say it again, perhaps more clearly. My ONLY concern is reaching an agreement that sends editors home happy and ensures the article remains fair and balanced.

The debate over what is proper or civil is a seperate issue. It does not resolve the conflict, the conflict gets resolved by discussing content. Valeofruin (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "And I agreed I was done mass editing, hence I got the hint. My Idea at this point is to discuss the actual content of the article with an open mind."


 * That's great news. I'm willing to discuss anything with an open mind.  In the future, if you or anyone else add anything new (information, sources, etc.) and anyone has a problem with them, discussion is the way to address it.


 * I actually have to correct a few edits I made yesterday because I pointed to the wrong ref name (wrong Geoffrey Roberts piece). I'm waiting for the correction to kick in as suggested by jpgordon, radeks, CJ Griffin, Kurzon, et al, for the article should be unlocked and restored to the point just before before your last mass revert you slipped in seconds before the protection, to this version.  Then I can correct my edits.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with it. I appologize and hope no hard feelings are drawn from this.

Basically all I ask is that you read some of the info in the current version that stands, check out some of the works listed (they are all online for free, for example Ludo Martens book is an excellent source of Pro-Stalin info, with info on basically every frequently discussed STalin Topic), and write about Stalin as a skeptic to ensure NPOV. All facts involving the amount of people Stalin killed etc. are in dispute, and so the article should account for this.

And of course a major edit should be discussed on the talk page. Its relatively obvious the sorts of info that makes a pro-Stalin editor cringe when placed in the intro. So if theres something you know will be disputed, discuss it first.

Friendly wording is also important. De Facto 'Ruler' 'Dictator' etc. Such words shouldn't be included if they don't HAVE to be included.

Having exactly what is up at this moment stand was not my goal at all. NPOV is my goal. If that got lost in the conflict I appologize for any confusion. I have no desire to personally claim ownership to any part of the article. I just wish for it to try to get as close to neutrality as possible.

With all this said if 1 thing is certain it's that the proposed versions today are leaps and bounds of progress ahead of the Summer version, which included phrases like: 'Millions of innocent people died to meet Stalins vision of massive Factory Farms.' Valeofruin (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've unprotected. (It's still semi-protected, as it has been for a long time.) "Friendly wording" is irrelevant; if reliable sources say "dictator" we'll say that those sources say "dictator"; if reliable sources say "sweet and wonderful Uncle Joe", we'll say those sources say that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)